Global warming hoax myth lies: what’s the truth?

May 7, 2007 at 10:25 am | Posted in 3rd grade, 4th grade, 5th grade, 6th Grade, 7th Grade, 8th Grade, Climate change, IPCC, Middle School, My graphic, OmniGraffle, Students, Teachers, Unequivocal, Visual aids, Visual Spatial | 5 Comments

Each green dot below represents a scientist who bases his* answers upon scientific evidence and supports, in general, the summary of knowledge relating to climate change as summarised in the IPCC Assessment Report 4 (to be synthesised and published in full in November 2007).

Each red dot below represents a scientist defending one or more of these aims:

  • to deny global warming
  • to deny human responsibility for causing (anthropogenic) global warming
  • to deny human ability to deal with the threat of climate change
  • to delay action to combat climate change
  • to prevent action to combat climate change

Make sure you get your information from a reliable source, kids.

If you already know about persuasive essays, think about the material you discover about global warming and consider whether it fits the tips you have been given to make your stories more persuasive. For example, does it use: colourful language, emotive word choices, adjectives you can ‘taste’ or ‘smell’, personal appeals, exaggerated statements?

More misinformation is produced by the tiny number of “red dot scientists” and their supporters than you would believe!

Here is my latest version, after feedback from brc (a student) and Rob (a scientist):

Climate Change is no joke.

This is my previous version:

IPCC AR4 assesses and reports on the work of thousands of scientists.  A few scientists disagree.

* P.S. I am showing no disrespect to female scientists here. After all, I are one (sic), and I care not one jot if someone addresses me as chairman (as I told the builders this week😉 ). Forget the chairperson thing. I am using ‘his’ and ‘him’ in the same way we talk about ‘mankind’. OK, over to you, kids.

5 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. wow!… you finished it!…. um, one question: why is the little “a few scientists disagree” thing upside-down?

    see you soon
    xox

  2. Ahh … because I thought they must be a little topsy-turvy😉

  3. Graphical representations usually make a point better than just numbers (for most people).

    In Al Gore’s film, he talks about the overwhelming nature of the concensus, but uses numbers. I think this is a better illustration of just how much those few scientists who deny global warming are in the minority.

  4. I like this better then the X but I have a similar criticism: you’re changing geometric forms (from a solid square to an outline) when you go to the deniers and it makes them look more numerous then they are. If you used the green dots to make an outline of a square, it wouldn’t fit on a screen. Why not make a solid square of green dots and a solid square of red dots and put them next to each other? If that makes the denialists look small, well, that’s because they are.

  5. Dear brc, tamino, and Rob,

    Thank you all for your valuable remarks.

    I agree, Rob, that I was not representing the two groups of scientists in a fair way. That was deliberate: I was thinking how I would use a single image to explain to students how the two groups present themselves.

    I would say that the professionals with integrity focus on scientific evidence. They humble themselves and gather around the science. By contrast, deniers make themselves appear larger than their meagre numbers warrant. So, I chose to use a cross in the first instance, to make the deniers look as big as possible, yet still in contact with each other. They increase their footprint with their oversized presence. This bloated look was what I was also representing when I reduced the deniers to the square outline. If I were explaining that to kids, I would say that they are like an empty shell: with no substance contained within.

    OK. Those are the two marketing / framing / explanatory angles that I would use if I were explaining these graphics to kids. Thinking about the incongruities in representation of the two groups often helps people remember key differences.

    I agree with you entirely, Rob, that I should use the same representations if I am offering this as a graphic with no further explanation. So, I have updated it above and repeated a clean version of this post under a new title here.

    The new title reflects the number of visitors I get looking for global warming jokes. I love humour, but not at the expense of serious decision-making!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: